上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 225

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt [スコア非表示]  (13子コメント)

Great post.

I wish they'd actually learn what third wave feminism was.

I don't expect agreement, or even tolerance, but is a basic core competency too much to ask for?

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics [スコア非表示]  (12子コメント)

Given that feminists can't agree on what they stand for isn't it a bit hypocritical to criticize people for "not getting what XYZ wave" is while at the same time using "feminism isn't a monolith" to defend against criticism for your radicals?

You guys still can't decide if Dworkin existed let alone which wave she was part of.

[–]Leinadro [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You guys still can't decide if Dworkin existed let alone which wave she was part of.

But they damn sure know its unfair to be critical of her work without acknowledging its "historical context".

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt [スコア非表示]  (9子コメント)

You guys still can't decide if Dworkin existed

I can tell this is going to be a productive conversation.

Given that feminists can't agree on what they stand for

A focus on women's issues, due to it's origins, with other feminists tackling human rights in general?

If you want to complain about shitty people abusing the tools at hand to screw everybody else over, feel free. I'm sure it'll be an informative post, just like the millions of other informative anti-feminist posts out there.

Great for getting outraged at some shitty people, and absolutely nothing else.

[–]Lonny_zone(づ ̄ ³ ̄)づ-----<3 /u/cuittler [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Actually, your reply is completely unhelpful. Obviously he didn't mean that Dworkin's existence is literally up for debate.

A focus on women's issues, due to it's origins, with other feminists tackling human rights in general?

I often come here and speak against some idea I have read that many professional feminists agree with and bloops wail "not muh feminism" and "nobody actually believes that" when I see feminists with millions of followers say it.

There is sex-positive feminism and sex-negative feminism. There are feminists that think shaving body hair is oppression and feminists who think breast implants are empowering.

This is what we are talking about.

[–]KrispyMcSockington [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

There are feminists who think porn is bad, but porn stars who call themselves feminists. My understanding of feminism is that it was largely against pornography. When I studied feminism philosophy and feminism in the media while at university, porn (and indirectly all things men enjoy sexually) was not seen very positively at all.

Then there is the hypocrisy of feminism, which says women should have free choice (good idea!) but if women choose not to be feminists or want to subscribe to traditional gender roles, they're lambasted for setting women back decades. But, I thought they had free choice? Then there are women who say feminism means different things to different people. It's very confusing when you get mixed messages like these. They also don't criticise each others extreme views, such as when prominent feminists said hateful things about men, which implies they are implicitly agreeing with their messages.

Have a look at what some celebrities say feminism is:

http://www.bustle.com/articles/121120-11-celebrities-define-feminism-in-their-own-unique-way

Then of course there's the fact that men can't really be feminists, just allies, which makes any men claiming to be feminists sadly mistaken. Men supporting it actually makes little sense because they get no say in what happens. Why men would support an organisation that isn't taking their views into account, I don't know.

This also seems contradictory: if women are equal to men then what more must men give up for them to be equal? If they are not equal then what other rights must they be given for them to feel equal? I am speaking in a western context. I don't see feminists flying to the middle east to protest against the treatment of women there. They usually condemn it from the safety and comfort of their middle to upper class homes.

If women want to be equal to men, then they also have to go through the bad stuff men go through. Feminism has convinced women that working a job is fun, but it sucks! In this paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research: http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969 it says that women's happiness has been declining steadily over the past few decades. In the 1970s women were (on average) happier than men, but there seems to be a crossover happening.

In this article by The Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1189894/Women-happy-years-ago-.html it says "'If you enjoy your job and it's a fulfilling career, that is a positive choice.. but if it's not, it's almost in some ways that we got it all, then found that actually it wasn't quite what we wanted.'

Now I am not trying to take away from women who enjoy their careers, but clearly something is wrong. Modern day feminism is just not doing the same things old school feminism has done. They fought for the right to vote, own property, have a job (which sucks but we have to live somehow) but modern day feminists are fighting boogeymen by comparison: manspreading, the patriarchy, slut shaming etc

The thing women are discovering now is that the world sucked for men too and they weren't living this perceived high life at all. Then they attack men even more, blaming men for their unhappiness. I am not saying things were perfect for women before, but there are consequences for your choices. Using feminism to avoid those choices - such as women enjoying a high paying job but still wanting job flexibility men NEVER had - is not realistic. I think the perception men were having a good life is part of the problem.

Heck, even Griffin Hansbury, a woman who became a man and took testosterone injections, explains that the perception he had of men when he was a woman was not true. It seems like feminism is attacking a straw man of the average male's experience when women are actually being hurt by how sucky the world is. Feminists seem to want to be exempt from the bad consequences and experiences while still reaping the benefits of having it all. That never happened for men. They also never had it all.

The world sucks for everyone: men, women and children (except the elite). Men have just had to suck it up longer without being able to complain about it.

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I often come here and speak against some idea I have read that many professional feminists agree with and bloops wail "not muh feminism" and "nobody actually believes that" when I see feminists with millions of followers say it.

Yeah, welcome to debating on this subreddit. It's just as frustrating from the opposite end. But I've found it helps to be as specific as possible. Don't attack feminism or the redpill, attack the specific belief of the specific branch, throw in a most or two, and even those who disagree with you on most things, may help you prune the tree.

There is sex-positive feminism and sex-negative feminism. There are feminists that think shaving body hair is oppression and feminists who think breast implants are empowering.

Absolutely. So, what do they have in common? Why are we supposed to only hyper-focus on the manosphere's favorite outrage porn?

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

You guys still can't decide if Dworkin existed

I can tell this is going to be a productive conversation.

So address what I said. Where does Dworkin fit in feminism?

What is the consensus view that all feminists would agree with?

Given that feminists can't agree on what they stand for

A focus on women's issues, due to it's origins, with other feminists tackling human rights in general?

I thought it was equality? Or that women are people. Or eliminating the patriarchy and gender roles. Or...

You see how feminists can't even agree on this simple thing?

If you want to complain about shitty people abusing the tools at hand to screw everybody else over, feel free. I'm sure it'll be an informative post, just like the millions of other informative anti-feminist posts out there.

Ah, no true feminists. Haven't seen that before.

Great for getting outraged at some shitty people, and absolutely nothing else.

What are your thoughts on the Duluth model? That has had a real impact and was created by feminists.

Is criticizing that from a male victim advocacy standpoint useless?

Or like the other feminist on here are you going to claim it doesn't exist and I'm delusional for thinking it ever did?

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Where does Dworkin fit in feminism?

Second wave sex negative radical feminist, and still vitally relevant to manosphere, which passionately fights against her true demon form to this day.

I thought it was equality? Or that women are people.

Yeah, those are in conflict. Can you try to debate a little more honestly?

Ah, no true feminists

Shitty people can be feminists. So, already we're up to two dishonest criticisms from you.

What are your thoughts on the Duluth model?

Started with good intentions and bad stereotypes. Despite improvements, primary aggressor models need cops educated about how to actually find out who it is. You won't find it in the crotch.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Second wave sex negative radical feminist, and still vitally relevant to manosphere, which passionately fights against her true demon form to this day.

So she was a feminist. Why then do you guys distance yourself from her?

Was she a true feminist?

Shitty people can be feminists. So, already we're up to two dishonest criticisms from you.

But if people claim them to be feminists and condemn them you come back with "gah you just don't understand feminism".

Which is it?

Started with good intentions and bad stereotypes. Despite improvements, primary aggressor models need cops educated about how to actually find out who it is. You won't find it in the crotch.

So then that would be an actual concrete example of how feminism in action harmed real men. It isn't some fictional demon angry men on the internet are railing against?

Also how does that fit with the "feminism is about equality" line? And why aren't feminists today fighting this?

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

But if people claim them to be feminists and condemn them you come back with "gah you just don't understand feminism".

If you try to pull a reverse "No True Scotsman" with them?

No true feminist isn't a bigot. Here's a shitty one that proves feminism is

It's not worth taking seriously. People may try to educate you. Some will be more qualified than others.

Was she a true feminist?

Sure. Did she always apply the principles of feminism in ways I agree with? Not even close, and most disagree with her.

So then that would be an actual concrete example of how feminism in action harmed real men. It isn't some fictional demon angry men on the internet are railing against?

Not at all. It was a second wave concept that sometimes went to Hell, fast. It hurt innocent people. It gave extra power to abusers.

It'd be great if the angry men knew it was second wave, and educated themselves more about it - women have been arrested under it too.

[–]findingmrnemoUnruly [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I can tell this is going to be a productive conversation.

Username checks out.

A focus on women's issues, due to it's origins, with other feminists tackling human rights in general?

They are likely more pointing out how so many feminists today claim feminism is about gender equality but focus on women's issues as well know to well they have it worse no matter what. And since when did feminism ever focused on human rights?

I do find it amusing you think RP should learn what 3rd wave feminism is about. Anyone can see what its about to what it actually does. For example the feminist site Everyday Feminism, which is all told a 3rd wave feminist site as they claim to be about intersectionality. Yet they spend 80% of the time on women 15% of the time on LGBT and the rest of the 5% is on everything else. The sheer lack of intersectionality is beyond noticeable.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial [スコア非表示]  (60子コメント)

Are we talking contemporary feminism and current thinkers such as Clemantine Ford, Emma Watson, Malala Yousafzai and Lauren Faust?

An historical grab bag worth a Google; http://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/g4201/famous-feminists-throughout-history/?

[–]--HankMoody--The human paradox [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Clementine Ford is a vile misandrist and Emma Watson only dates male jocks (proving through her actions endless red pill truths - watch what she does, don't listen to what she says, AF, SMV, hypergamy - all 100% confirmed by observing Emma Watson's life). I have already been exposed to the lies and toxin from Clementine Ford, she has made me more committed to the red pill than any man ever could. So in summary I agree red pill men, read Clementine Ford, even if you are a blue pill male you will be forced towards the red pill view point by her despicable brand of misandry. She believes in rape culture (if you want a rape culture look at the Congo or Boko Haram, not at Australian men). She wrote an article suggesting that white men only believe in rape culture when it is committed by brown men. She is a misandrist, a bigot and a hate monger.

[–]WolfsoulsPurple Pill Woman [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Why does hypergamy or an attraction to masculine men invalidate her as a feminist? Are feminists only allowed to date feminine betas according to you? Feminism is about freedom, the freedom for women to live their lives however they choose, be it inside or outside traditional gender roles. What one finds sexy is mostly biological and not relevant to politics.

[–]Jet20 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

It was more people noting the hypocrisy of her speech where she extolled the virtues and attractiveness of being a good beta provider while still dating a pro Rugby playing Chad.

Common bad advice doesn't become any better when delivered from a podium.

[–]WolfsoulsPurple Pill Woman [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

How do you know her rugby player isn't handsome and virtuous at the same time? Why do you assume her advice was related to romance at all? It's like complaining that a gardening advice article only gave you information on the best fertilizers to use, and that the advice was useless because it didn't help you get laid.

[–]bromance946The Bromance Pill [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

It doesn't invalidate her as a feminist, but it does point to structural problems for feminism. An analogy would be - yes, you can be a SAHM and a feminist, but if all women chose to be SAHMs, that would contradict the notion that women should also be 50% of CEOs.

If all women really are hypergamous, it's absurd to expect women to achieve equality in the Platonic spheres of life because men will always have more incentive. They will have intrinsic incentive plus incentive from SMV, whereas women will have reverse incentive from SMV.

[–]WolfsoulsPurple Pill Woman [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

All women won't choose to be SAHMs, a good portion of women will still want to pursue careers. The feminist notion is that all powerful positions should be split 50/50, to give women equal influence in society.

it's absurd to expect women to achieve equality in the Platonic spheres of life because men will always have more incentive

So you're yet another person who thinks equality=sameness? It's not. Also, if women are hypergamous, then why would they have a problem with men choosing to over-achieve?

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman[S] [スコア非表示]  (53子コメント)

Whatever you wish that reds would understand about feminism, modern or historical. I don't have a defined topic in mind. I want to know what ideas in feminism you wish reds would know, or that you think is often misunderstood here, or just important to what we talk about.

Interesting article BTW. I was only able to read the first page, but it's cool to see the evolution of feminism.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial [スコア非表示]  (52子コメント)

To be honest; I think that any attempts to foster understanding or empathy would be an exercise in casting pearls before swine. These men are openly hostile to knowledge about anything that does not conform with their world view.

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega | 31 YO incel virgin [スコア非表示]  (11子コメント)

But that doesn't answer the OP's question.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

I had already answered it in the previous post. Did you want me to elaborate and provide links; or are you just being snarky?

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega | 31 YO incel virgin [スコア非表示]  (9子コメント)

Not necessarily links, but titles and descriptions would do.

I mean, as of right now, your reply sounds like you don't want them to understand anything about feminism.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

This site is pretty accessible for feminism virgins; http://www.feminism101.com/

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega | 31 YO incel virgin [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

You're still avoiding the question. I suspect it's because you either don't know what it is that terps misunderstand/don't know about feminism, or you're actually comfortable with them being that way. If so, it just goes to show that the whole purpose of BP is not to fight for a better world, but just to stroke your egos by fighting a designated villain.

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

So by adding a link that I think provides a solid foundation regarding feminism, as the OP requested, I'm avoiding their question? Really?

[–][削除されました]  (2子コメント)

[removed]

    [–]seeing_red_lewd [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

    You're not posting feminist writings, concepts, or quotes. Did you read the OP? So something like The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan, if you thought that every RPer reading that book would enlighten this subreddit.

    Edit: I'm sincerely trying to squeeze some thought-provoking feminist material out of you, so let me clarify the OP.

    You know how BPers often misunderstand AWALT? Assuming BPers get the gist of The Red Pill otherwise, I would recommend that they read so-and-so post by so-and-so blogger to enlighten them on the concept of AWALT such that they could properly understand it before debating against it.

    Likewise, the OP is asking what redpillers could read to correctly understand a feminist concept that we accidentally misinterpret.

    [–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

    I thought that would be a bit heavy and dated for a contemporary reader. Greer's "The Female Eunuch" , Wolf's "The Beauty Myth", Valenti's "The Purity Myth" and Hirsi Ali's "Infidel" are a bit more accessible. bell hooks is also worth checking out, with "feminism for everybody: passionate politics" being the flagship.

    What did you think of Friedman?

    [–]seeing_red_lewd [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Friedman

    Didn't bother reading it. Life is short. No offense but I prefer my current queue (three books by Vonnegut, Into the Wild, Village in the Treetops, and Grapes of Wrath.) Read my edit and get back to me? I came into this thread expecting something like this.

    [–]squidracerMGTOW.. (sorta) [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

    At least you referred to other people as swine instead of just calling them stupid like a standard liberal shaming tactic..

    Your insults are so common I'm pretty sure that it's bloopers that hangout in the anger stage

    [–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    You're unfamiliar with the proverb?

    [–]angels_fanMarried Red Pill Man [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Not true.

    I'm RP and I thrive on education.

    I would love to hear some good arguments from the other side.

    [–]LordFishFingerI found pills (and ate them!) [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

    That's not very charitable.

    [–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

    You're right; it's not.

    [–]LordFishFingerI found pills (and ate them!) [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

    The outgroup is so uniformly irrational that there's no point arguing against them, so just assume the ingroup is always right!

    How convenient.

    [–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

    Just in case you actually are interested in learning something; http://www.feminism101.com/

    [–]SepeanMarried RP Man [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

    This is the first line on the front page:

    A feminist is, and always has been, anyone who favors political, economic and social equality for women and men.

    It's an obvious lie. Is that how you want us to "learn something"?

    [–]LordFishFingerI found pills (and ate them!) [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

    See, now you're actually answering OP's question. Good job.

    [–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Are you going to read it?

    [–]questioningwomanshameless intellectual ;) [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Why should you have empathy for those who constantly make the wrong assumptions about you and actively want to make your life worse? Oh yeah because females are expected to do that.

    [–]NechamaNo pills [スコア非表示]  (27子コメント)

    Yup. Anyone who believes the things they do while interacting with the world around them has problems. Normal functioning people don't believe the weird and wacky things they do in this day and age.

    Why are they so deluded and gullible? Why do they throw their critical thinking skills out the window?

    Because Their self-worth depends on TRP being true.

    They need to believe TRP. They need to blame women for their problems because they don't want to accept responsibility for their failings. They need to trash women because it's the only way they'll feel better about themselves.

    Their conspiracy theories are a baby blanket they cuddle with at night.

    Address their issues first, break away from the cult, then perhaps we can talk about feminism.

    They're not ready.

    [–]seeing_red_lewd [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

    They're not ready.

    I'm ready. School me bro

    Because Their self-worth depends on TRP being true. They need to believe TRP. They need to blame women for their problems because they don't want to accept responsibility for their failings.

    Interesting, I pick up a strong "you're responsible for your own shit" vibe from the subreddit.

    They need to trash women because it's the only way they'll feel better about themselves.

    At this point I think you're just extrapolating off of anger phasers. We feel fine about ourselves, tease girls, and have fun. Your view of redpillers is a little warped. Might be a, uh, hard pill to swallow, but we're not insane.

    [–]NechamaNo pills [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Not insane. Troubled.

    They Need to blame women for their problems and trash them to feel better about themselves. Mods, ECs, main bloggers, veterans.... As well as anger phase newbies.

    [–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

    It's actually a very easy pill to swallow: just buck pass all the blame to women.

    [–]exit_sandmannot the MGTOW sandman [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Well, you of all people should be able to relate to it since the inverse seemed to provide your troubled soul with copious amounts of solace.

    [–]NechamaNo pills [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Yup. No "owning of shit" required. So much easier to say feminism ruined the world and women are subhuman

    [–]Jet20 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

    Wew I hope all my chakras are all aligned and I've achieved the level of corporeal enlightenment required to possibly decipher such an unbelieveably complicated concept that you are promising to bestow upon mine ears from the clouds above.

    Get over yourself and answer the question. Stop trying to dodge it by adhomming or obfuscating by implying feminism is hard to understand. It isn't. Its a female interest group based around increasing in the entitlements of women while reducing their responsibilities. The only confusion results from feminism's constant redefinitions whenever people call them out on bullshit and they have to retreat into an even sturdier motte. Radical notion women are people, right.

    [–]Leinadro [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    The response is not surprising or unique to red pill critics.

    Time and again criticism of feminism is chalked up to "not understanding" as an excuse to not engage.

    [–]NechamaNo pills [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    I never said feminism is hard to understand, I said terpers don't understand it. They're uninformed and uneducated about it. Yourself included.

    There were no ad Homs in my post, if you're bothering to Wikipedia something add that to your list. It could help but you aren't open to learning.

    Feminism is wasted on terpers. They're not ready for it.

    [–]prometheangambitJust being myself or somebody else [スコア非表示]  (14子コメント)

    I really don't fully grasp this. Please enlighten me!

    When I first stumbled across TRP, it basically epitomizes a very cynical worldview - everybody sucks, but especially me.

    Women suck for hypergamy and loving Chad. Sure.

    But I'm to blame for being a beta male loser who deserves nothing but contempt. I suck for being emotional. I suck for being weak. I suck for being blind. I suck for not spinning plates, not lifting, not being charismatic, not being Chad.

    Women suck because it's in their nature, but I suck even more for being a disposal male. Actually, all women are better than beta-omega losers intrinsically because ovaries, so I doubly suck. Life on hard made. Bottom of the totem pole. QQ moar.

    TRPs kinda harsh to everyone, and especially betas and incels. The only difference is that I can seek atonement by pumping iron. They offer a way out of being human garbage.

    I remember trying to blame women, but found it impossible without blaming myself, and somewhere along the lines all of humanity. Nihilistic cynicism and self-loathing made everything suck.

    [–]NechamaNo pills [スコア非表示]  (13子コメント)

    Exactly.

    you blame women for your inadequacies and trash them to feel better about yourself.

    [–]AnnoyingSeaAntAngry Jack Frost [スコア非表示]  (12子コメント)

    Nice totally unbiaised interpretation.

    It's actually: Women sucks because I suck, actually the whole humanity sucks because of that, but I am humanity too, so I should deal with it.

    [–]NechamaNo pills [スコア非表示]  (11子コメント)

    No, you're blaming women for your failure to relate to them. you call them subhuman. Makes you feel better about yourself to call women subhuman.

    An echo chamber of guys telling you what you want to hear is not an unbiased opinion. Perspective is only gained from outsiders.

    [–]AnnoyingSeaAntAngry Jack Frost [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

    That flair is not red, you know. I also think RP blame way too much shit on women, while they apply to the whole generation at least.

    But you see, blaming the other while thinking every bad thing that happened is the fruit of others/the system is a pragmatic decision to preserve your ego. See also "ugh white cis men".

    [–]NechamaNo pills [スコア非表示]  (9子コメント)

    In the case of terpers, it's delusion to preserve their self-worth. They're not ready to address their inadequacies and prefer to blame women. They feel so terrible about themselves all they can do is trash women to feel better.

    It's not pragmatic at all. It's highly irrational behavior. no one believes the weird things terpers do.

    [–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

    And when the student is ready, the teacher will appear.

    [–]postingcrap [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

    This sub is for debate, not circlejerks.

    [–]NechamaNo pills [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Unless said circle jerks are about women and/or feminists.

    [–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    So go ahead and debate...

    [–]NechamaNo pills [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

    You see Chemist?

    Utterly pointless. Terpers need to solve their issues and quit the misogyny.

    Feminism is out of reach for these guys.

    [–]UA_HammerBrad Pitt DYEL Club [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

    Interesting. What issues do I have to solve?

    Besides, you know, the issue of disagreeing with you

    [–]NechamaNo pills [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

    What issues do you have to solve?

    I don't consider disagreement an "issue."

    [–]UA_HammerBrad Pitt DYEL Club [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

    Hey now, I thought you just said you could identify issues from other people's posts. You're a regular here so you've seen my posts. Diagnose me doc, what do I need therapy for?

    Don't be shy, you can go through my post history if you want. I'm very curious

    [–]NechamaNo pills [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

    You thought wrong.

    I didn't say i could identify other people's issues from their posts. You'll have to go elsewhere if you really want someone to spend an inordinate amount of time deconstructing what you say.

    And sorry to disappoint, but I don't read your posts.

    [–]UA_HammerBrad Pitt DYEL Club [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

    I see.

    You know, the thing about pulling the red lever that says eject is, while it does get you out of any additional danger, everyone gets to watch me doing barrel rolls as your plane flies into a mountain at Mach 3.

    [–]NechamaNo pills [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    So you consider disinterest in what you have to say to be doing... barrel rolls.

    [–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Yeah, this thread dissolved into a mess very fast.

    [–]czerdec [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Heh, that's like a cockroach petulantly saying "that daisy's out of reach for that gorilla".

    Feminism isn't hard. It sounds hard, superficially. That's because it uses polysyllabic words, like physics articles.

    Unlike physics articles, the polysyllabic words used in feminist tracts don't mean anything at all that can be pinned down. All it is is gussied-up opinions that they believe in really, really hard.

    But when the time comes to provide hard, indisputable definitions that mean something concrete and testable... nothing.

    [–]AutoModeratorPurple Pill Machine...literally[M] [スコア非表示]  (142子コメント)

    Attention!

    • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

    • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

    • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

    • OP you can choose your own flair, just press Flair under your post!

    Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–]exit_sandmannot the MGTOW sandman [スコア非表示]  (138子コメント)

    There's a difference for redpillers and feminism - those who haven't grown up in a very traditional environment usually have been abundantly exposed to feminist and feminist-influenced ideas.

    I ask you: would this or this or this be thinkable without a pervasive influence of feminism? When it comes to feminism, most guys at TRP are to some degree like Scott Aaronson, the difference being that after puking out what has been shoved down their throats, they refuse to eat their own vomit and pretend it's a delicacy (which Scott Aaronson still did).

    [–]NechamaNo pills [スコア非表示]  (137子コメント)

    I have yet to see a Terper here understand feminism and the relevant talking points. They've got no clue

    [–]exit_sandmannot the MGTOW sandman [スコア非表示]  (75子コメント)

    Feminism is the radical notion that women are better people.

    [–]TheDividualist [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

    Maybe: patriarchy is the radical notion that women are people.

    By people, I mean not the fictional creation of the Enlightenment, the autonomous individual who flourishes under complete atomistic freedom, but the social animal who needs the web and with that the restrictions, the roles and hierarchies and limitations and mutual duties of social life. Men are not different in this basic regard, just different in the specifics of needs and capabilities.

    [–]questioningwomanshameless intellectual ;) [スコア非表示]  (9子コメント)

    Because males benefit from that power structure. They are given autonomy and allowed to flourish and their intellect to be used in a patriarchal society. For women it's harder. Female DOCTORS who actually knew what they were doing were persecuted and almost not allowed into the profession. Saving lives apparently was less valuable when a female did it. What if you're better at another role than the role society boxed you in? Are your talents you were born with a waste? Should you just perform poorly at your supposed role because you weren't born with those talents and then have society sneer at how bad you are at it? You may as well rebel against society, do what you're good at because they're gonna hate you either way. AND flaunt it so they see they can't stop you. According to you, if a woman's born with a high IQ and is gifted but bad at stereotypical female things, she should be blocked from utilizing her gifts AND judged as someone who has no talent or anything good about her. Why should she care about this society?

    [–]cruelironageAnti-Modernity [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

    Women are advantaged in every possible way in every possible part of society. Feminists are utterly delusional though and repeat constant streams of lies, outright lies, that are repeated so often that I sometimes wonder if they actually believe them.

    But hey if you want to fully withdraw your support from society I am absolutely all for that. From where I sit women have so much institutionalized privilege in every possible way that it's just mind boggling that everyone doesn't see it.

    I mean I could try to "discuss" this with you but I've wasted way too much of my time in that delusional belief that any feminist was arguing in good faith. So now I choose rhetoric. That and intentionally treating feminist women like the hate filled monsters, absolutely terrible people, just utter scum, that they are.

    [–]questioningwomanshameless intellectual ;) [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

    Certain types of women yes. Other types of women not so much. But you have your blinders on and only observe the women you want. RP men basically observe the basic women and the sorority women and think life is like that for all women to the point they can't even imagine a woman suffering.

    [–]cruelironageAnti-Modernity [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Oh believe it or not I have had many many women friends in my life. I've talked with many women in those tender moments when they'll open up. About their struggles. Very real struggles. And I've done my best to tell them the truth.

    Most women don't want to hear the truth. They prefer the lies we're all told. And now the feminists have made commitment a borderline crime, punished far far more severely than a lot of other crimes. Why did they do that? You want us to refuse to commit?

    I'm sure that somewhere out there in the world there are girls that aren't liars. But how am I supposed to find one of them? Every girl is going to tell me that she's different. But then lie anyway. Hell somehow women delude themselves into thinking that they aren't actually lying, or its just ok to do it so long as nobody finds out. And now the risks have been made beyond incredible, beyond extreme, so much so that their isn't really any reason to bother to try to find some diamond in the rough. Much better to just take steps so that it doesn't matter what you do. You can do whatever you want to do. I'll just never ever commit to you or ever expect that you're even capable of commitment.

    The way I see it is through the prisoners dilemma. There used to be social forces that would push men and women both into a cooperate-cooperate strategy. I'll support and love you even when you get old, and give you my best years, but in return you'll commit to me, not fuck anybody else on the side, and give me your best years and bear children for me. Now? What are you actually offering me?

    Not your best years. That's for your career, you go girl!, and fucking Chads. But hey when your best years are all gone and you've proven that commitment doesn't mean shit to you somehow I'm supposed to give you my best years and still love you even when you're all old.

    The way I see it is women realized that they could use a defect-cooperate strategy on men and get so much more. The problem is we're waking up to your defect strategy and now we defect back. So we've gone from a cooperate-cooperate strategy, where some people would defect but were punished for it, to a defect-defect equilibrium. Where even if I cooperate and you defect I'm the one who is punished. And if you cooperate and I defect I'm still punished. So why bother to ever cooperate?

    You can't commit to me. That shit is illegal now. That's what feminism has done. And they did it on purpose.

    I'm very aware that the life of a woman is not easy. And that you have many things in your life to come to grips with, to struggle through, and a whole host of your own problems. We could cooperate-cooperate but life has taught me that women say that's what they want, they say that's what they are going to do, but watch their actions. It's not what they do. And you expect me to risk that again? For what? You can't give me children, it's illegal. I can get sex from young girls who stay young forever and have MUCH less risk! I know feminists are busy trying to increase the risk of getting sex that way with the rise of fake rape charges. Make the risk of getting sex that way even worse and hey? I'll just go mgtow and fuck escorts.

    It's like you all don't even realize that the life of a man is also very difficult and we have no support.

    Who in their right mind thought that destroying marriage was a good idea? That starting a gender war was a good idea? Oh yeah feminists. And you're still around waging war against us with your hollow words.

    [–]5th_Law_of_Robotics [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

    Males as a whole benefit under our current system?

    There are more males on the streets, in jail, or struggling to get by than there are men in the 1% or Congress (or women at the bottom).

    Women live longer, are less likely to commit suicide or find themselves homeless, have full reproductive and bodily autonomy, and will only rarely be punished severely when they break the law.

    On average women are doing better than men.

    [–]questioningwomanshameless intellectual ;) [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

    Not the current system necessarily but from the patriarchal system they want to bring back. Now it's more or less even but shifting towards the latter for the under 30 crowd.

    Women do find themselves homeless and actually make more suicide attempts than men do. And when women have "male problems" these days, they're called statistical outliers and their problems are ignored.

    [–]5th_Law_of_Robotics [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

    Not the current system necessarily but from the patriarchal system they want to bring back.

    A) what men want to bring that back? Because as it's worded you seem to think all.

    B) the same holds true in that system. A few guys and their wives and kids benefit while most do not and the very worst off are men.

    Now it's more or less even but shifting towards the latter for the under 30 crowd.

    In no way is it more or less even for the reasons I described.

    Women do find themselves homeless

    Never said otherwise. But they are the minority of homeless.

    and actually make more suicide attempts than men do.

    Meaning either they're too dumb to figure it out or they aren't sincere.

    Men actually kill themselves more.

    Can you accept this?

    And when women have "male problems" these days, they're called statistical outliers and their problems are ignored.

    Examples?

    [–]questioningwomanshameless intellectual ;) [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

    One example is men say the system is geared towards women because hyperactive kids are put on Ritalin. If a female child is hyperactive, they just say "That problem is rare in girls, the system is still geared towards her".

    [–]5th_Law_of_Robotics [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    .... That women are children with adult rights and men are adults with obligations and no rights.

    [–]NechamaNo pills [スコア非表示]  (48子コメント)

    It's easy to parrot sentences without understanding what they mean.

    [–]exit_sandmannot the MGTOW sandman [スコア非表示]  (41子コメント)

    Oh, I think my interpretation of the witty quip about the definition of feminism is far more accurate than the original.

    Feminists do think women are better people. They don't admit it, neither to themselves nor to the general public, but for all intents and purposes they operate under the assumption that women are better and/or more valuable people.

    [–]NechamaNo pills [スコア非表示]  (40子コメント)

    I'm sure you do.

    Like I said, I have yet to meet a Terper that knows what feminism is

    [–]exit_sandmannot the MGTOW sandman [スコア非表示]  (37子コメント)

    Okay, then refute why feminists are truly convinced that men and women are equal and not that one is better than the other. And not just because they say so, but because they actually act in a way that corroborates that claim.

    [–]NechamaNo pills [スコア非表示]  (36子コメント)

    Yeah.

    Teaching a Terper about feminism.

    Been there, done that.

    Work on your issues first, when you're ready we can talk.

    [–]NPIFRed Pill Man [スコア非表示]  (30子コメント)

    You want to have a debate with someone "on your level?" Come at me bro. Minored in Women's Studies in University with an A average.

    Believe it or not, you can understand feminism on an academic level and still think it's doing more harm than good to western women in the 21st century. The third wave is rife with disorganized rhetoric. Modern Feminism has become a catch-all that is supposed to include LGBT issues, race, sexuality, and more. And in becoming so, it has lost much of the focus in its origins, which was to seek egalitarian treatment under the law for women. That goal has been achieved. Modern western women have more rights and freedoms than at any time in history, yet somehow this narrative of continued oppression under the "patriarchy" persists.

    My belief is that western women, in all their solipsism, have become blind to what a real patriarchy looks like. Go spend some time in Arab countries and then tell me how tough you have it back home.

    [–]exit_sandmannot the MGTOW sandman [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

    You're not really convincing.

    Maybe because you don't actually have a real argument in the first place.

    [–]cruelironageAnti-Modernity [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

    I have yet to meet a feminist that knows what feminism is. They change their definition willy nilly to avoid ever acknowledging objective reality. Just like women do in every part of their lives.

    [–][削除されました]  (5子コメント)

    [removed]

      [–]Leinadro [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

      I notice that a lot.

      Even citing specific things (like how feminism supports a specific definition of sexism that essentially says sexism against men and female privilege dont exist).

      [–][削除されました]  (3子コメント)

      [removed]

        [–]NechamaNo pills [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

        No, I didn't express an opinion on either VAWA or the Duluth model.

        You had quite a lot in your post. Some of it was imaginary straw manning. And I called you on it.

        [–]5th_Law_of_Robotics [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

        No, I didn't express an opinion on either VAWA or the Duluth model.

        You called me paranoid and delusional for asking about them.

        [–]ProbablyBelievesIt [スコア非表示]  (13子コメント)

        That was a second wave utopian ideal. It crashed and burned, and nobody's taken it seriously in decades. Except for random trash talking and those who take girl power too literally while screaming how unfair it is that anyone has a problem with AWALT.

        [–]exit_sandmannot the MGTOW sandman [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

        It crashed and burned, and nobody's taken it seriously in decades.

        Not really. Feminists may pay lip-service to equality, but their actions belie these claims.

        [–]ProbablyBelievesIt [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

        Especially if all you know about feminism comes from eagerly clicking on outrage porn click bait until you have an orgasm of complete moral superiority.

        [–]hedonism_bot_69"Human life must be some kind of mistake" Schopenhauer [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

        lmao

        [–]czerdec [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

        Especially if all you know about feminism comes from eagerly clicking on outrage porn click bait until you have an orgasm of complete moral superiority.

        But if the outrage porn is verifiably accurate, and no mainstream feminist organization condemns the outrageous feminist act, then the outrage porn is just reporting the facts fairly.

        [–]ProbablyBelievesIt [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

        Most mainstream feminist organizations, that are announced as just "feminist organizations" are second wave initiatives, and wrapped up in politics.

        Meanwhile, organizations with intersectionalist feminist goals, and members, don't get asked, because it would require research, and moderates make horrible sound bites.

        [–]czerdec [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

        Meanwhile, organizations with intersectionalist feminist goals, and members, don't get asked

        Oh, they're not allowed to condemn outrageous acts unless specifically asked? I guess I didn't understand feminism after all /s

        Sisters are doing it for themselves! (if someone asks us to and we get permission from City Hall)

        [–]Atlas_B_ShrugginQuite Often Toxic [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

        when did second wave crash and burn and who are the leading third wave thinkers i can go read right now. i know bell hooks is widely considered a leadign third wave thinker, anyone else?

        [–]ProbablyBelievesIt [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

        Second wave utopias crashed and burned. Second wave cynicism is alive and well in the Hillary campaign.

        She's the best place to start with 3rd wave.

        [–]Atlas_B_ShrugginQuite Often Toxic [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

        i was alive and very aware during the second wave, especially the mackinnon/dworkin era. can you explain how it "crashed and burned"? what does this mean?

        [–]ProbablyBelievesIt [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

        I was referring only to the belief that if women gained power, they'd be more just, more fair - that they were just better than men, all around, and in every way.

        [–]dakruNeither [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

        Except for random trash talking and those who take girl power too literally while screaming how unfair it is that anyone has a problem with AWALT.

        Look, I'm not a redpiller and I frequently criticize AWALT. I actually think it's often the TRP's motte-and-bailey, meaning that what AWALT means when you criticize them is frequently a lot different from what AWALT means when they're talking about it between themselves.

        So the motte-and-bailey doctrine is when you make a bold, controversial statement. Then when somebody challenges you, you claim you were just making an obvious, uncontroversial statement, so you are clearly right and they are silly for challenging you. Then when the argument is over you go back to making the bold, controversial statement. [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/]

        So I'm not coming at this saying "what feminists do is bad but what TRPers do is A-OK".

        But I very much believe that the "girl power!" or "women can do anything men can do, but better!" messages, as well as the general cultural climate where it's a lot more socially acceptable to say good things about women/girls and bad things about men/boys than the other way around, has a negative effect on a lot of boys growing up. If TRP's culture and messages ever came close to what I just described in terms of influence or commonality then it would cause a problem for girls too, but as it stands they're just a medium-sized forum on reddit.

        A passage I like that helps explain my point:

        Unfortunately, in its earnest quest for female empowerment, America—never quite good at moderation, and always quite good at fighting the last battle—is quietly and methodically marginalizing boys. Every day, through various media campaigns, America’s boys absorb countless messages that girls can do anything—and that they deserve our unending attention and adoration. When it comes to boys, however, the cacophony of “dream big” media encouragement falls oddly silent. The assumption, one supposes, is that the giant, sinister swath of oppressive male “privilege,” supposedly inherited by young boys, speaks for itself.

        Spend any Saturday watching the Disney Junior channel—I actually don’t recommend this, as a general life rule—and you’ll see countless reruns of a promotional ad for “Dream Big, Princess,” a new, three-year ad campaign celebrating girls and the thousands of remarkable things they can do with their lives: Science! Karate! Gymnastics! Traveling to the moon! Running for president! Promotional signage for “Dream Big, Princess” has already appeared in some Target stores; in the television ad, as the music swells, triumphant girls are celebrated as “champions.” Any young boys watching the ad, amid its quasi-messianic strains, could be forgiven for thinking they were born into a far inferior, far less magical sex. [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/03/10/defending_boys_in_a_girl_power_age__129930.html]

        [–]ProbablyBelievesIt [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

        But I very much believe that the "girl power!" or "women can do anything men can do, but better!" messages, as well as the general cultural climate where it's a lot more socially acceptable to say good things about women/girls and bad things about men/boys than the other way around, has a negative effect on a lot of boys growing up.

        Especially young boys who lack good masculine role models, growing up in toxic/abusive environments, in a day and age when a Sarah Palin or a Hillary Clinton prove that incompetent and corrupt women can rise through the system too! Hooray for equality!

        It's a really good point, and a fair one - I wish there was more of a "What can we do for boys too?" alliance to make the world a better place, rather than a growing "We'll make misogyny cool again!" reactionary movement.

        But I question your belief that the redpill is a small and harmless crowd. They even admit that they represent success dynamics for a good percentage of the population. Just because their claim that they represent everyone is comical overreach that even they can't always say with a straight face, it doesn't mean they lack all real world power. (Unless we're talking about most of the main redpill subreddit, or as they're better known, Omega Red.)

        A typical field report.

        [–]5th_Law_of_Robotics [スコア非表示]  (56子コメント)

        I love it when you guys pretend it's such a complicated subject that detractors couldn't possibly understand.

        It's exactly like hardcore Christians insisting that anyone who doesn't believe as they do clearly doesn't understand the Bible.

        Feminism as a movement isn't complicated.

        It's an advocacy group. Except instead of being for a business sector or other demographic it's for women. Radical stuff there.

        And like all those other groups they're seeking to push laws that benefit their group regardless of the harm it does to others. But they can't openly say that so they put on a more appealing face.

        Coal groups aren't fighting to crush renewables, they're trying to bring jobs back to America! In the same way feminism isn't working to benefit women even at the expense of men. They're fighting to ensure women are treated like equals!

        [–]TheDividualist [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

        It does not seem true because feminism does not represent the true interest of women. Feminism represents the interestes of certain women, like those who really believe in personal autonomy, like those who are feminists, careerists or sluts, but given that the vast majority of women are the happiest as mothers married to a man who is a decent boss, it doesn't. If I want to be very generous, feminism represents the educated upper crust of women, the modern-day Virginia Woolfes. Blue stockings basically.

        I have yet to see feminist ideas that would help the average cleaning maid, and many hurt her directly ("you don't need a man, careers are empowering") and so on.

        [–]questioningwomanshameless intellectual ;) [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

        Or maybe the cleaning maids could be asked to be paid more or to have more benefits. Those issues are also important. Making sure the wage they get is something they can live on. Rent control can help that, especially in the cities.

        Life isn't worth living without personal autonomy. If you don't have it, you're essentially a slave. Why do males have the right to personal autonomy yet women don't? Just because I have a vagina I have to have other people determine the course of the rest of my life? You're not guilting me with this supposed privilege nonsense and you're not guilting me with this group nonsense. Everyone should have a choice and they still have the choice to be wives and mothers if they want.

        [–]cruelironageAnti-Modernity [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

        You have every possible right imaginable. You can do whatever you want to do and most of the consequences will be forced onto men. I lack rights you have. I don't get to raise my own children, but I'm forced by government violence to give money to the mother. Whether I want to or not. I can't have children. There is not any possible way for me to have children in the West. You get special treatment for your whole life in every possible way that I do not get. And still you can't stop whining and complaining. Jesus Christ just stop your whining. How are you not embarrassed to be the most privileged class to ever exist in all of history and yet you still can't stop whining?

        [–]5th_Law_of_Robotics [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

        In what way do women lack personal autonomy? Because they can't afford an apartment in Manhattan on a minimum wage job? That applies equally to men you realize.

        [–]questioningwomanshameless intellectual ;) [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

        If you looked at the above post, I was addressing what he wanted in the world.

        [–]NechamaNo pills [スコア非表示]  (49子コメント)

        Simple.

        You don't understand it.

        [–]Jet20 [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

        Give me a condensed summary.

        If you're so well versed in feminism you should be able to rattle off a few sentences that describes it at its most fundamental level.

        [–]NechamaNo pills [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

        You're right. I can also tell you to use Wikipedia if you were really interested in learning.

        [–]Jet20 [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

        I'll take that as a victory by forfeit then if you're not even going to try. Great debate.

        [–]NechamaNo pills [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

        Were you under the impression we were debating?

        This may be what you consider debating, but I'm certainly not debating.

        I gave you a suggestion as to how to educate yourself knowing you wouldn't read it.

        And you didn't read it.

        And I'm not surprised.

        [–]5th_Law_of_Robotics [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

        Yeah if they wanted a debate they should go to a sub with "debate" in the title.

        That person has no right to expect a debate from a member of purplepilldebate!

        [–][削除されました]  (16子コメント)

        [removed]

          [–]NechamaNo pills [スコア非表示]  (15子コメント)

          No, I'm right because I read good sources and have properly educated myself.

          Terpers don't know what they are talking about because what little they do read has no informative value. They're uneducated, uninformed, and forego any critical thinking skills that might send off red flags about the crap they believe whereas most people would be able to identify conspiracy theories as such.

          They may not be stupid, but they're certainly making themselves stupider.

          [–][削除されました]  (14子コメント)

          [removed]

            [–]NechamaNo pills [スコア非表示]  (13子コメント)

            It's not me personally. It's everyone. Terpers have chosen to adopt long disproven and discarded ideas that society has thrown in the dustbin of history.

            You don't need to be smart to be correct. Just have common knowledge. Terpers believe really really weird things that no one else does.

            [–]TheDividualist [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

            This isn't just TRP, it is a far larger Dissident Right in that regard: not about being ignorant of commonly accepted ideas but knowing them well and disagreeing with them because having examined what older books say, these newer ideas and not actually correct, they just won in a social way basically popularity contest.

            If you would look into the higher-brow Dissident Right sites, we actually know the history of "progressivism" or "leftism" - which includes feminism - better than most of its adherents. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentalism this is a 200 years old set of ideas and many modern feminist and leftist ideals are rooted in that: "Transcendentalists believed that society and its institutions ultimately corrupted the purity of the individual, and had faith that people are at their best when truly "self-reliant" and independent."

            Leftist have actually forgotten their own roots, but the Dissident Right does learn about them, in order to seek how the whole thing could be changed right at its root, modernity as such changed - and the roots are 200 or more years old.

            [–]5th_Law_of_Robotics [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

            It's not me personally. It's everyone. Terpers have chosen to adopt long disproven and discarded ideas that society has thrown in the dustbin of history.

            Literally everyone agrees with your definition of feminism? That's funny. Because typically if you ask 10 feminists what feminism means you'll get 11 different answers.

            Seems feminists and terpers have an equal understanding of feminism.

            You don't need to be smart to be correct. Just have common knowledge. Terpers believe really really weird things that no one else does.

            So describe exactly what feminism is in a way which encompasses the actions and views of all feminists.

            [–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

            Actually more people believe what RPers believe then the stuff you seem to believe.

            [–]betterdeadthanbetaTrump did nothing wrong [スコア非表示]  (20子コメント)

            You have obviously failed to fully comprehend the masculinist critique of feminism. Go read these 10 books and get yourself up to speed intellectually. Until then there is no further point in me attempting to enlighten you. You're simply too plebeian to comprehend any truly sophisticated discourse on the topic.

            [–]NechamaNo pills [スコア非表示]  (19子コメント)

            Which ten books?

            [–]betterdeadthanbetaTrump did nothing wrong [スコア非表示]  (18子コメント)

            Yeah.

            Teaching a feminist about men's rights.

            Been there, done that.

            Work on your issues first, when you're ready we can talk.

            [–]NechamaNo pills [スコア非表示]  (17子コメント)

            I was being sarcastic. You don't have ten books to cite.

            Feminism has done more for men's rights than the manosphere could ever hope to achieve. Head on over to askfeminists for a lesson.

            You're welcome.

            [–]betterdeadthanbetaTrump did nothing wrong [スコア非表示]  (12子コメント)

            Nah. See, feminists don't know what they are talking about because what little they do read has no informative value. They're uneducated, uninformed, and forego any critical thinking skills that might send off red flags about the crap they believe whereas most people would be able to identify conspiracy theories as such.

            They may not be stupid, but they're certainly making themselves stupider.

            [–]5th_Law_of_Robotics [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

            I'll use your tactics: feminism hates men and the MRM is actively helping men. If you don't agree with that you don't understand what the MRM is about.

            Citation: Google.

            [–]Jet20 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

            Because the definition keeps changing whenever anyone criticises it's latest version.

            Reminds me of those "TRUE COMMUNISM has never been tried, so you can't criticise it" people.

            [–]NechamaNo pills [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

            The movement has changed as society has changed. It's not difficult to grasp for those that want to learn.

            It's a shame that you assert that you can't possibly educate yourself because of history happening and societies changing.

            [–]Plugawy_Nedznik [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

            You cannot understand bailey and motte fallacy.

            [–]Atlas_B_ShrugginQuite Often Toxic [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

            If I read everything I can on this subs sidebar will I get an idea what modern feminism is?

            Do these blogs represent modern feminism

            [–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

            Feminism doesn't exist. If i say some one is a feminist what have you learned? Nothing in fact you have less knowledge than you started with. Which wave of feminism, are they in the esentalist wing (cultural, gender critical) or the non estsentalist wing (marxist, intersectional). Are they swerfs? terfs?

            You literally know less about person after stating they're a feminist than if you hadn't stated they were feminist at all.

            Which leads me to my next point:

            Yes AFALT that, because there is no church or pope of feminism to dictate what is canonical feminism and which isn't canonical feminism. the most a feminist i have see will ever do is say if a person does x they aren't feminist. which is like a christian or muslims saying after one of their cultist kills people they aren't one of them. yeah they were. which is weak fucking sauce. (NTS) Also saying 'feminism is about equality' is a motte and bailey tactic of a rapidly dying ideology that is more and more being shown to be a hate group. Juila bindel a prominent second wave said to put all men in camps. about 2 months later she was no platformed by feminist. not for suggesting we put men in concentration camps (that was perfectly fine and feminist), no she was no platformed for being a TERF. Jessica 'male tears' valenti a syndicated writer for the guardian, whos writing looks like some thing gobells would write if you turn on the mienkampf extension. (same for mandy marcotte). Yet do feminist ever call their bigots out by name? fuck no.

            So why shouldn't i use (and assume) AFALT. Saying feminism is about equality is like a white nationalist saying the KKK is about white rights and white nationalism is about making a safe place for whites and white culture. funny both groups pretend not to be agents and pretend to be victims all the fucking time.

            [–]Leinadro [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

            Pretty much this.

            Feminists like to keep a nebulous definition like, "believe in equality" because then who is or isnt a feminist can be changed on the fly.

            Valenti is a feminist when writing about the Purity Myth (which I largely agree with how girls are caught up in the nonsense of "virginity") but then when she takes pleasure in male suffering via her male tears bit things change to "thats not MY feminism".